Now that the new guidelines and procedures have been approved
and are in the RFC Editor queue, I would really like it if you
would no longer cite RFCs 2717 and 2718 but their replacement,
in particular because the process and guidelines have changed
significantly.
Since you're trying to be careful to discern between
resource and method of identification, I'm not particularly
happy with the presumption behind some of your wording.
For example, you have a section head
"Scenario: Accessing http resources using a peer-to-peer protocol"
But I don't think it is appropriate to call the
resource "a http resource". While it's fine to use informally,
if you're trying to distinguish between "the category of
the resource itself" and "the scheme used to identify
the resource" and "the protocol used to access the resource",
the simple phrase "http resource" doesn't explain which
of those levels you're really talking about.
If you say "if I have a URI that starts with
'http:', I can access the same resource using
some protocol other than the HTTP protocol", well,
I will say that of course you can do what you want,
but that the definition of the "http" URI scheme
doesn't define any such access method, so you're
not doing so in any defined way.
There's an upcoming workshop on
"Identity, Reference, and the Web"
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/irw2006/
I liked David Booth's write-up
http://www.w3.org/2002/11/dbooth-names/dbooth-names_clean.htm
but I think we may have some more distinctions to make
under "Web Location".
Larry